Fix typos

docs/multichain.md

@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ interoperability for the DAO that uses Simperby.
 Also, considering that a Simperby chain has no contracts or business logic but
 is only capable of recording explicitly approved data, there is nothing to
 execute automatically on the Simperby side. That is, the multichain
-communication system **doesn't have to be bidrectional**. Things happening
+communication system **doesn't have to be bidirectional**. Things happening
 (finalized) in the settlement chain might be delivered to the Simperby chain in
 the same way (embedding a light client) but that's just pointless; there's
 nothing to programmatically respond to such events because Simperby does not

docs/protocol_overview.md

@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ agenda, and included directly by the proposer, ex officio.
 You might notice that the role of the consensus leader is very important in the
 Simperby governance.
 
-### Responsibiliy
+### Responsibility
 
 The leader should be **responsible**.
 

docs/vetomint.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ collected so far.
 
 1. Assuming that all non-byzantine validators cast prevotes/precommits and the
 messages are delivered before the timeout expiration, the system is never
-blocked by timeout by possible disuptes.
+blocked by timeout by possible disputes.
 2. The system is guaranteed to be safe if the byzantine voting power is less
    than $1/3$. i.e., The byzantine threshold for safety is $1/3$.
 3. If the byzantine voting power is less than $1/6$ and all non-byzantine
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Since all validators of Simperby are designed to run their own nodes and
 Simperby puts significant burden on proposers (see [protocol
 overview](./protocol_overview.md)), the stable leader policy significantly
 improves the usability.  
-Unlike all other validators that turn on their node occassionally for voting,
+Unlike all other validators that turn on their node occasionally for voting,
 the leader should stay its node turned on for on-demand block production and
 managing the chatting service.  
 Not all validators are willing to take this burden, so it is desirable to choose
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ however, the lack of *early termination* becomes a severe issue. For example, it
 might be the case where the half of validators have casted non-nil prevotes and
 the other half have casted nil prevotes. In such a case, if it were the original
 Tendermint, although all validators have made decisions, validators can do
-nothihg but wait for the upcoming timeout expiration, which can be intolerably
+nothing but wait for the upcoming timeout expiration, which can be intolerably
 long.
 
 To prevent such issues, we add a new early termination rule to Tendermint. If a
@@ -157,9 +157,9 @@ To further explain the importance of the choice of 5/6, we will present an
 early termination threshold. We will demonstrate that $x = 5/6$ is optimal.
 
 First, the early termination rule is intended to prevent the consensus from
-getting stuck by timeout, as long as all non-byzantine validators particpate
+getting stuck by timeout, as long as all non-byzantine validators participate
 promptly. To achieve this, the byzantine threshold must be no greater than
-$1-x$. If it were greater, byzatine validators could hinder the consensus by
+$1-x$. If it were greater, byzantine validators could hinder the consensus by
 simply not broadcasting prevotes.
 
 Second, we want to ensure that, if more than 2/3 of the validators cast non-nil